Let the Right be Done

[coberst]

Let the Right be Done

America politicians are the best experts available for evaluating the judgmental ability of American citizens. Watching election campaigns offer us an opportunity to quickly gauge the level of intellectual sophistication of US citizens as judged by politicians; the politicians’ expertise in all such matters determines their success or failure as a politician.

The father looking over the shoulder of his daughter working on her homework says. “Perhaps I can help”. She says “I’m looking for the lowest common denominator”. He, looking rather shocked, replied “Whoo! Are they still looking for that?”

Is democracy merely the process of seeking the lowest common denominator?

The two primary concepts of ethics are right and good. In the United States we give priority to right by ensconcing detailed rights in the Constitution. Good can be freely determined by each individual as long as our good does not trounce another’s rights.

Our government, like Lincoln’s government in the Civil War and FDR’s government in WWII, has decided to reprioritize our Constitutional rights in favor of the good that our government has determined to be in synchronization with the will of the majority.

The majority seems to, in periods of great stress, give priority to the good instead of the right that was determined in ‘cold blood’. I consider such action to be a weakness of democracy. What do you think about it?

 

[lilithu]

Let the Right be Done

America politicians are the best experts available for evaluating the judgmental ability of American citizens. Watching election campaigns offer us an opportunity to quickly gauge the level of intellectual sophistication of US citizens as judged by politicians; the politicians’ expertise in all such matters determines their success or failure as a politician.

The father looking over the shoulder of his daughter working on her homework says. “Perhaps I can help”. She says “I’m looking for the lowest common denominator”. He, looking rather shocked, replied “Whoo! Are they still looking for that?”

Is democracy merely the process of seeking the lowest common denominator?

The two primary concepts of ethics are right and good. In the United States we give priority to right by ensconcing detailed rights in the Constitution. Good can be freely determined by each individual as long as our good does not trounce another’s rights.

Our government, like Lincoln’s government in the Civil War and FDR’s government in WWII, has decided to reprioritize our Constitutional rights in favor of the good that our government has determined to be in synchronization with the will of the majority.

The majority seems to, in periods of great stress, give priority to the good instead of the right that was determined in ‘cold blood’. I consider such action to be a weakness of democracy. What do you think about it?

You had me until "Our government, like Lincoln’s government in the Civil War and FDR’s government in WWII, has decided to reprioritize our Constitutional rights in favor of the good that our government has determined to be in synchronization with the will of the majority."

Do you consider what Lincoln and FDR did to be weaknesses of democracy?

 

[MaddLlama]

What is it you wish to debate? Your post is unclear.

 

[Sunstone]

If Americans had better leaders at the present moment, they would be less fearful of terrorists and less likely to give up their rights for imagined security.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

America is the only country I can think of where people educated at it's best schools and universities have to pretend to be unsophisticated yokels in order to get elected.

It's certainly the only country in the world where a member of its most privileged aristocratic class could successfully pass himself off as a prole by imitating the tastes and speech patterns of the peasantry and actually get elected because he is viewed as a simple everyman.

It's really quite surreal: a country that lives in excellence but aspires to mediocrity.

But then again i think it shows why Hollywood is in America and why we so dominate the world of entertainment: there is an abundance of natural acting talent on these shores.

 

[doppelganger]

Is democracy merely the process of seeking the lowest common denominator?

Maybe. Like any sales pitch, it's about creating a perception of need and presenting your product as the best means to fill it. If you really don't have much of substance to offer, it takes a lot more work to create the perception of a need you can fill. The result is that politicians try to stimulate those "needs" that can be created with powerful effect over individual's decisions with the least amount of effort. Thus, the truly successful ones try to exploit the worst angel of our nature - FEAR - to create a need at an almost emotional level. They then offer a mythology featuring themselves as the means to meet this created need. In the information age, there is no time for leadership or substance. And obviosuly, some approaches to fearmongering work better than others.

If you have a real talent for the game, you naturally learn to really know your audience - in Goebbels sort of a way.

The two primary concepts of ethics are right and good. In the United States we give priority to right by ensconcing detailed rights in the Constitution. Good can be freely determined by each individual as long as our good does not trounce another’s rights.

I think we are safer understanding this concept of rights as the good, with the limitation of protecting the invidual rights against other individuals and the state is part of our concept of rights as a good.

Our government, like Lincoln’s government in the Civil War and FDR’s government in WWII, has decided to reprioritize our Constitutional rights in favor of the good that our government has determined to be in synchronization with the will of the majority.

So did Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and countless others.

The majority seems to, in periods of great stress, give priority to the good instead of the right that was determined in ‘cold blood’. I consider such action to be a weakness of democracy. What do you think about it?

The majority in periods of great stress becomes very, very easily ruled by drawing upon their lack of security. Fear blocks reason. And a reasoning electorate is beating heart of a viable democracy. It's a weakness of humans. One we have been sloppy about guarding against here of late.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Someone posted this in another thread....
It is just as applicable to this one.

Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.


— General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party, Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II, April 18, 1946.

 

[coberst]

You had me until "Our government, like Lincoln’s government in the Civil War and FDR’s government in WWII, has decided to reprioritize our Constitutional rights in favor of the good that our government has determined to be in synchronization with the will of the majority."

Do you consider what Lincoln and FDR did to be weaknesses of democracy?

What Bush, Lincoln, and FDR have in common is that all three have allowed the good to trump the right. Even though we have, in cooler times, decided that the right trumps the good.

 

[coberst]

What is it you wish to debate? Your post is unclear.

Pick a card. This is a democracy.

 

[coberst]

If Americans had better leaders at the present moment, they would be less fearful of terrorists and less likely to give up their rights for imagined security.

If the security is not imagined but is rational should this make a difference?

 

[doppelganger]

If the security is not imagined but is rational should this make a difference?

Security of what,exactly?

 

[coberst]

Security of what,exactly?

Sunstone said "If Americans had better leaders at the present moment, they would be less fearful of terrorists and less likely to give up their rights for imagined security."

I replied "If the security is not imagined but is rational should this make a difference?"

The security in question is the security of the citizens of the nation.

 

[doppelganger]

Sunstone said "If Americans had better leaders at the present moment, they would be less fearful of terrorists and less likely to give up their rights for imagined security."

I replied "If the security is not imagined but is rational should this make a difference?"

The security in question is the security of the citizens of the nation.

What do you mean by "Security"? Safe from terrorist attacks? What would constitute that kind of "security"?

Perhaps preserving and respecting rights all the more is the means to create more security, while undermining them is a way to create less security.

It all depends on what you can sell to people as "security."

 

[Flappycat]

Coberst, you raise some interesting points, but I really wish that you would work on your ability to explicate them.

 

[spacemonkey]

Check my signature.

 

[lilithu]

What Bush, Lincoln, and FDR have in common is that all three have allowed the good to trump the right.

Yes, I understand that you are saying that. What I'm asking is whether you really feel that what Lincoln and FDR did was a failure of democracy.

For me, rights exist to serve the good, not the other way around.

 

[coberst]

Coberst, you raise some interesting points, but I really wish that you would work on your ability to explicate them.

What is it I have not made clear?

 

[coberst]

Yes, I understand that you are saying that. What I'm asking is whether you really feel that what Lincoln and FDR did was a failure of democracy.

For me, rights exist to serve the good, not the other way around.

Lincoln, FDR, and Bush have rejected the rights defined in the Constitution in order to serve what they consider to be the good. In our society we contend that all humans have certain rights and that rights have priority over the good.

 

[lilithu]

Lincoln, FDR, and Bush have rejected the rights defined in the Constitution in order to serve what they consider to be the good.

You've just restated the same thing for the third time. I am asking you for the third time why you think that this is automatically a bad thing.

In our society we contend that all humans have certain rights and that rights have priority over the good.

Umm... where does it say that rights have priority over the good?

 

[coberst]

You've just restated the same thing for the third time. I am asking you for the third time why you think that this is automatically a bad thing.


Umm... where does it say that rights have priority over the good?

There is nothing automatic about any of these matters.

This gets to what I mean by intellectual sophistication. All of these matters are very complex and they are very important. When we depend upon our childhood conceptions we make a serious error.

When I was a child I thought as a child, but now I am a man and must learn to think like a man. An intellectual sophisticated man or woman has taken their childhood concepts and have remolded them in to a form suitable to the thinking of a sophisticated woman or man.

The following is a post I made recently about this kind of matter and may clarify my meaning.



Captain Dave will under no circumstance torture a prisoner (open morality). Captain Jim will torture a prisoner when he considers such action will save the lives of his platoon (closed morality).

“The two main concepts of ethics are those of the right and the good; the concept of a morally worthy person is, I believe, derived from them.” This quote and any others are from “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls.

In teleological (explaining phenomena by final causes) theories of ethics the good is defined independently from the right.

The attitude of the individual is to seek the satisfaction of desire, more appropriately it is “the satisfaction of rational desire”. Many people find that society should be just an extension of this attitude. The good, for society, is the satisfaction of rational desire. The right is that which maximizes the good.

Others in society reject this utilitarian view and find that the right comes before the good and embodies a boundary for the good. The right becomes a principle that has priority over the good. In the United States the right is placed in the Constitution and each individual determines the good.

Captain Dave rejects the utilitarian view of morality (open morality). Captain Jim embraces the utilitarian view of morality (closed morality).

Morality/ethics is a matter pertaining only to the relationship between subjects and thus there is nothing objective about it. All such matters are subjective and thus relative. Religion interjects God into the matter and thus makes it a matter of absolutes for believers.

Many individuals think of the individual as constituted by the community to which s/he belongs—their value is dependent to a large extent upon the community. It is this interdependence upon the community that makes ideology so very potent. For the individual who embraces closed morality the ideological association is more important than to the person with an open morality.